If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to the new PC Perspective forums! Have a look around and tell us what you think in our feedback forum. If you notice any bugs or style issues, please report them in this thread.

Re: Syria.

Originally Posted by Spyd3r

You dont have to answer me the story, I know it all despite being a youngin compared to you.

Your storys are propaganda and exagerations, war is war and their are atrocieties period, you can just say this side is bad cause they did this cause all sides commit attrocities, and there is no denying the fact that it was NOT your land, and sent young kids to fight a war against people that did nothing to them with the excuse of communism......

All started with NK war which china did not let you have their way, before that FDR and soviets and chinese were good friends.
Then comes cold war 1.0 and they are bad mmkay. But lets not start on atrocieties numbers cause the real ones you wont see are the USes. Yet you will see ho chi this mao that, maybe if you understand the why, unlike Stalinism or Leninism Maoism beleives in extermminating all political opposition before even finishing revolution to not lose power later

Tucker hit the nail on the head - "pointless adventure into a uncharted dementia".

Re: Syria.

Will 250 Special Forces troops sent to Syria have an effect.

Maybe some... Game changer, nope. That war ain't going to end until the Obama administration is in the history books for a number of years. Obambi has screwed everything up so bad it's going to take a while to unscrew it. ISIS is every where it's going to take a long time to root them out and kill them.

Re: Syria.

While the attached headline for this Washington Post opinion piece by uber-leftist Katrina Vanden Huevel is technically linked to the piece, it might have been better to call it “Trump Did Something Good, And That’s Not Something Progressives Should Agree With!!!!!”

Syria strike follows Washington’s failed foreign-policy playbook[2]
“There’s a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to follow,” then-President Obama said last year, defending his decision not to unilaterally strike Syria in 2013. “It’s a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses. Where America is directly threatened, the playbook works. But the playbook can also be a trap that can lead to bad decisions.”

Obviously, Katrina cannot place blame at Obama’s feet for 6 years of inaction, dithering, leading from behind, and general fecklessness. Nope. Trump

A heinous crime, but, since Trump responded, and because he said something and attempted to do something to limit the people coming from a war torn area replete with ISIS members and Islamic extremists, it’s all his fault. Seriously, who was president the past 6 years? That’s what worsened the humanitarian crisis.
It is a testament to the absurdity of the presidential “playbook” that perhaps the most irresponsible act of Trump’s madhouse presidency has also been one of the most widely applauded. Suddenly, much of the same media and political establishment that has routinely portrayed Trump as an unstable and inept authoritarian are ecstatic that he decided to drop bombs in the Middle East. Airing footage of the assault, MSNBC anchor Brian Williams admired the “beautiful pictures of fearsome armaments.” Five major newspapers collectively published 18 pieces that endorsed the strikes or argued they were insufficient, according to media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting.

Irresponsible. Obviously, it would have been better had Trump stated that Assad not cross the next red line, or used a strongly worded letter or a hashtag with a sad face.

But there is little evidence that the strike accomplished anything beyond a temporary popularity boost for a flailing president. If Trump’s goal was to punish Assad for using chemical weapons, the punishment was effectively nothing more than a timeout, as Syrian warplanes resumed use of the targeted air base less than 24 hours after it was hit. And if Trump has a coherent strategy for what happens next, he has failed to communicate it to the American people or the international community.

Maybe it’s better to not broadcast war-plans to dictators and wackjobs at the United Nations. Because Obama’s method of telling everyone his plans, then backing off those plans, hasn’t worked out so well. But, hey, Trump!Katrina whines some more, using the same talking points as other Leftists who just can’t acknowledge that Trump do something good, ending with

Despite the clamoring of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, the unfortunate reality is that their “playbook” does not contain a path to victory in Syria. Rather than agitating for more U.S. military intervention in a war that cannot be won, we should be calling on our government to lead a diplomatic effort to end the war once and for all. And for those who recognize that Trump cannot bomb his way to peace, it is time to revive and mobilize an antiwar movement to keep the United States from getting entangled in another Middle East war with no clear strategy and no end in sight.

Perhaps Katrina could illuminate us on how to go about ending the war diplomatically? What could the parties be offered? How to get to that peace? What are her plans? Bueller? You have the Assad regime, the regular folks of Syria, the rebels, and then the Islamic extremists, particularly ISIS. What does peace look like between the four?

And why didn’t Katrina’s god, Barack H. Obama, lead a diplomatic effort to end the war once and for all? He was the guy In Charge for the last 6 years, was he not?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove[3]. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach[4].

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."